The history must be objective, the genocide term is very sensitive! Watch the video to see the realities that world media does not tell you!
Showing posts with label IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. Show all posts
ASALA Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
ARMENIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
ASALA-"Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia"
ASALA is the most talked-about Armenian terrorist organization, in the new period of the Armenian terrorism between 1973 and 1985. The firm information about its foundation, organization structure and activities are yet to be published. Various Armenian sources and publications give some information about some people and ASALA, and they often announce the results obtained from the publications of this organization and terrorist group. The information includes those desired to be disseminated or those which are not found inappropriate to announce. From one standpoint, ASALA's foundation is attributable to incidents emerged in Lebanon, it is regarded as part of activities of Palestinian Liberation Organizations in Lebanon, and it is supported that it is these activities which have inspired its foundation. On the other hand according to some publications, several Armenians gathered and founded a new terrorist organization which created the most striking and efficient terrorist activities in a short period of time. All of these are far from fully explaining the foundation of ASALA. The existing hesitations will continue for a long time unless the conditions under which ASALA has emerged as an organization, is known and the gap it has filled has been satisfactorily clarified.
ASALA-"Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia"
ASALA is the most talked-about Armenian terrorist organization, in the new period of the Armenian terrorism between 1973 and 1985. The firm information about its foundation, organization structure and activities are yet to be published. Various Armenian sources and publications give some information about some people and ASALA, and they often announce the results obtained from the publications of this organization and terrorist group. The information includes those desired to be disseminated or those which are not found inappropriate to announce. From one standpoint, ASALA's foundation is attributable to incidents emerged in Lebanon, it is regarded as part of activities of Palestinian Liberation Organizations in Lebanon, and it is supported that it is these activities which have inspired its foundation. On the other hand according to some publications, several Armenians gathered and founded a new terrorist organization which created the most striking and efficient terrorist activities in a short period of time. All of these are far from fully explaining the foundation of ASALA. The existing hesitations will continue for a long time unless the conditions under which ASALA has emerged as an organization, is known and the gap it has filled has been satisfactorily clarified.
First of all, it must be known that the first movements of the Armenian terrorism in the new period have emerged as a requirement of the policies and objectives of the Tashnak Armenian terrorist organization. It has been clarified with various evidence that Tashnaks have completely supported the western view in the historical process and in the described period and that they have pursued a policy based on the Turkish objectives and implementing terrorism at a limited level. Actually, neither their structure nor their historical development is suitable to display any approach and conduct other than above. There is a gap in this environment. An attractive future, closely concerning the Marxist and new revolutionary generations and called new Armenian resistance organizations in particular as put in France, is presumed to be a gap related to the Soviets and the Eastern countries. In fact, this field has been already filled long time ago by Hınchaks. And since 1960, Hınchaks have been paving the ground for the new terrorism with various views. However, Hınchaks do not appear around, and a new terrorist organization called ASALA emerges with the desire to be seen as new in every aspect. Considering the preparatory factors of the new Armenian terrorism and reviewing in particular Hınchaks' goals, policies and objectives may lead us to think that Hınchaks constitute a terrorist group. Nevertheless, the conditions in Lebanon, new developments caused this group to appear before the world public opinion as a new Armenian Terrorist group, and this organization has become known with the terrorist incidents for which it has claimed responsibility. Actually, there is no remarkable change in the situation. In the historical process, both terrorist organizations are on the stage. One is more evident with its terrorist groups and teams, while the other is invisible with all manpower, experience in addition to the immaterial and psychological support remain under a cover of an Armenian terrorist group, and this group performs terrorist acts through groups and teams of lower level.
1. Foundation and Organization Structure
ASALA was founded in 1975. Of its founders comprised of 6-7 members, Agop Agopyan, one of the two most active members of the terrorist organization, was the known leader. The other was Agop Tarakçıyan who performed the murder acts himself and terrorist incidents and who made the organization survive while Agop Agopyan was absent. The latter died in 1981. The former remained as the leader of the organization except the periods of various injuries and treatments. He came to be known as a worker of the Palestinian Liberation Organizations. He bore the name Mucahit.
The structure of the organization was suitable for the model of the Armenian terrorist organizations.
The Lebanese Central Committee assumed the top management of the organization. In particular, in 1980, this committee took an important shape in Lebanon. And it got the air of Büron.
Some of the assigned affiliated sub-institutions and bodies to the Central Committee were the Political Committee-Financial Committee Propaganda and Publication Committee-Intelligence Committee and Military Committee. The military committee was a body to which also the act teams were affiliated.
2. Goals and Objectives
ASALA published to the world public its political program declared in 1981 with its goals and objectives. Accordingly, the goal of ASALA was to found a democratic, socialist and revolutionary Armenia united under the leadership of the Government. It was clearly understood where this defined Government was. The Soviet Union and socialist states were requested every kind of assistance and the Soviet Armenia was regarded as a base for the long war of the public.
The enemies fell under two groups in the political program. The first of these was called local reactionaries who were the Armenians against ASALA or not for ASALA, being Tashnak Armenian terrorist group, while the second was shown as the Turkish Imperialism supported by the international imperialism.
ASALA accepted and proclaimed that the basic way for rescuing the Armenian territory (?) is to commit revolutionary violent acts. Under the program, ASALA would support those who refused the hegemony of the upper classes and make efforts to set up and strengthen coalitions within the international revolutionary movement. For which violence and terrorism were the bases.
In order for the objectives to be achieved within ASALA, it did not matter if the terrorist acts were committed particularly against Turks or friends of Turks or if official or distinguished people were selected. "Terrorism was an incident and what mattered was the dimension of it. The objectives might be given secondary importance. For this reason, massacres, killings which would cause great repercussions and bombings were prioritized, and not much emphasis was placed on the casualties being a child, woman, Turk or being of any other nationality. However, every tine, Turks and Turkey were prioritized for the terrorist acts. The reasons of the attacks and massacres at the Ankara-Paris Airports, Istanbul and Kapalıçarşı and Orly attack were simply the effect and repercussion that the dimension of such incident would bring.
ASALA was founded in 1975. Of its founders comprised of 6-7 members, Agop Agopyan, one of the two most active members of the terrorist organization, was the known leader. The other was Agop Tarakçıyan who performed the murder acts himself and terrorist incidents and who made the organization survive while Agop Agopyan was absent. The latter died in 1981. The former remained as the leader of the organization except the periods of various injuries and treatments. He came to be known as a worker of the Palestinian Liberation Organizations. He bore the name Mucahit.
The structure of the organization was suitable for the model of the Armenian terrorist organizations.
The Lebanese Central Committee assumed the top management of the organization. In particular, in 1980, this committee took an important shape in Lebanon. And it got the air of Büron.
Some of the assigned affiliated sub-institutions and bodies to the Central Committee were the Political Committee-Financial Committee Propaganda and Publication Committee-Intelligence Committee and Military Committee. The military committee was a body to which also the act teams were affiliated.
2. Goals and Objectives
ASALA published to the world public its political program declared in 1981 with its goals and objectives. Accordingly, the goal of ASALA was to found a democratic, socialist and revolutionary Armenia united under the leadership of the Government. It was clearly understood where this defined Government was. The Soviet Union and socialist states were requested every kind of assistance and the Soviet Armenia was regarded as a base for the long war of the public.
The enemies fell under two groups in the political program. The first of these was called local reactionaries who were the Armenians against ASALA or not for ASALA, being Tashnak Armenian terrorist group, while the second was shown as the Turkish Imperialism supported by the international imperialism.
ASALA accepted and proclaimed that the basic way for rescuing the Armenian territory (?) is to commit revolutionary violent acts. Under the program, ASALA would support those who refused the hegemony of the upper classes and make efforts to set up and strengthen coalitions within the international revolutionary movement. For which violence and terrorism were the bases.
In order for the objectives to be achieved within ASALA, it did not matter if the terrorist acts were committed particularly against Turks or friends of Turks or if official or distinguished people were selected. "Terrorism was an incident and what mattered was the dimension of it. The objectives might be given secondary importance. For this reason, massacres, killings which would cause great repercussions and bombings were prioritized, and not much emphasis was placed on the casualties being a child, woman, Turk or being of any other nationality. However, every tine, Turks and Turkey were prioritized for the terrorist acts. The reasons of the attacks and massacres at the Ankara-Paris Airports, Istanbul and Kapalıçarşı and Orly attack were simply the effect and repercussion that the dimension of such incident would bring.
3. Strategies, approaches and conducts
The basic strategy in ASALA was to gather all the progressive Armenian movements all over the world at one point in Lebanon and to guide them from a center. . In short, the progressive Armenians would unite under one roof and initiate the "ASALA Public Movement". This would consequently enable the progressive Armenian powers to engage in a formal cooperation and to combine their powers.
ASALA tried to implement this part of its strategy by calling for a meeting in Lebanon for all the progressive Armenians in the world. The wording "progressive" meant "socialist-Marxist".
The second stage of the strategy was to spread terrorism through this union of power along with the assistance of the socialist governments, and start the war period. The Armenian terrorism was a part of the liberation struggles in the Middle East, and could unite with any movement against the integrity of Turkey. The cooperation between ASALA and PKK occurred as a result of this strategy.
The approaches and conduct in ASALA reflected a full terrorism. Terrorism at every level of administration and implementation was considered to be symbol of this organization. Leaders killed one another and liquidated those whom they did not like and made them kill. Apart from these, every terrorist team was attempted to be introduced to the world public as a new terrorist organization and every kind of propaganda was made in this regard. The responsibility for the murders were claimed by various, newly-known organizations. Attached is a list at the end of the study regarding the efforts how the death-killing-bombing-rebel teams was shown as an organization under different names. The reader may carefully follow through this list what such a great number of Armenian organization may do. However, none of these could go beyond being a team or group, and remained as the machines of murder affiliated to and guided by ASALA.
The basic strategy in ASALA was to gather all the progressive Armenian movements all over the world at one point in Lebanon and to guide them from a center. . In short, the progressive Armenians would unite under one roof and initiate the "ASALA Public Movement". This would consequently enable the progressive Armenian powers to engage in a formal cooperation and to combine their powers.
ASALA tried to implement this part of its strategy by calling for a meeting in Lebanon for all the progressive Armenians in the world. The wording "progressive" meant "socialist-Marxist".
The second stage of the strategy was to spread terrorism through this union of power along with the assistance of the socialist governments, and start the war period. The Armenian terrorism was a part of the liberation struggles in the Middle East, and could unite with any movement against the integrity of Turkey. The cooperation between ASALA and PKK occurred as a result of this strategy.
The approaches and conduct in ASALA reflected a full terrorism. Terrorism at every level of administration and implementation was considered to be symbol of this organization. Leaders killed one another and liquidated those whom they did not like and made them kill. Apart from these, every terrorist team was attempted to be introduced to the world public as a new terrorist organization and every kind of propaganda was made in this regard. The responsibility for the murders were claimed by various, newly-known organizations. Attached is a list at the end of the study regarding the efforts how the death-killing-bombing-rebel teams was shown as an organization under different names. The reader may carefully follow through this list what such a great number of Armenian organization may do. However, none of these could go beyond being a team or group, and remained as the machines of murder affiliated to and guided by ASALA.
4. Political developments
Regarding ASALA, which had been accepted to be founded in 1975, the political developments became effective in two phases. It was strengthened with new powers it had been provided during the Paris Armenian Conference held in 1979. It was reinforced in 1981. It was divided into two in 1983.
The terrorist organization, which had been founded in 1975, performed its first act by assassination of the first secretary of the Turkish Embassy in Beirut, Oktay Cerit by one of its founders Agop Tarakçıyan in 16 February 1976. It was involved in the conflicts among Palestinians until 1979. Contacts were initiated with the Armenian terrorists in France during the Armenian conference held in Paris in 1979. And the organization gained new members; new blood. The most well-known ones among these were Alex Yenikomşiyan and Monte Melkiyan. In 1981,many terrorist acts were committed by these new groups. ASALA started to threaten Switzerland on one hand and France on the other hand. The New Armenian Resistance Organization in France announced that "Azad Hay" in Canada and "Gaitzer" in United Kingdom joined ASALA: The terrorism continued with great efficiency and became common during these years and conflicts started in the central staff In particular, the terrorist acts performed by ASALA, targeting also the innocent people discredited it in various public opinion polls. Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the ASALA executives were compelled to leave Lebanon along with the Palestinians. The organization was divided into two in July 1983.
The Agop Agopyan Group were settled in Greece and the Middle East. It continued terrorism without discriminating between the Turkish and foreign people or woman or child. Orly continued massacres and attacks.
In the Western Europe, it got the name "ASALA Revolutionary Movement". It followed a policy which was based upon a more moderate approach and targeting only Turkish people. The two leaders of this movement were Monte Melkoyan and Ara Toranyan. Toranyan led a Paris-based group called Armenian National Movement. This group qualified the Orly attack as a completely Fascist attack.
Melkonyan, on the other hand, stated that they aimed at establishing the political ground for the Armenian struggle. According to this, the movements had two aspects: (1) activate the Armenians (2)Cooperate with other powers which are taking action against Turkey. Melkoyan who was born in Iran put forward the strategy to forge alliances at the second stage. Agopyan continued his activities, too.
5. Support and relations
ASALA is provided a triple support as a result of its aims and ongoing policies: (1) Support by the Soviets-Eastern Block and Socialist countries (2) Support of countries, with a policy based upon weakening Turkey through internal and external threats and terrorism, as required by their geopolitical expectations: Greece, Syria etc. (3) Support provided by communist parties, indirectly from Hınchak Armenian terrorist organization and its sympathizers, and from the Armenian churches, though they hold counter-views.
ASALA's relations were arranged, in line with the strategy they were implementing, by giving a priority to the non-Armenian terrorist organizations, which were in an attempt to pose a threat, and use terrorism against Turkey. These included at the stage between 1975 and 1980, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, communist parties, activist groups and secret organizations of some states. In April 1980, ASALA expanded its relations with the joint act agreement signed with PKK in Sidon, Lebanon. It is by this way, a unity in view and act was established between ASALA and PKK.
In actuality, both organizations share the same aims, and have similar structure and views. At the stage starting after 1983, ASALA developed its relations in compliance with the strategy of Monte Melkoyan. The basis of the strategy was to focusing on the use of terrorism in Turkey, and establishing relations with every organization which was directly or indirectly capable of implementing this strategy in the form of acts. Some of the leading ones are PKK, similar institutions, TKP and other communist organizations.
6. Publications and means of communication
The most important and official publication of ASALA is "HAYASTAN".
Besides, the magazines "Haykar", "Armenia" and "Kaytzer" published in London are included among the leading publications.
ASALA started its radio broadcasts in Beirut in 1981, and made broadcasts one hour a day with the title "Voice of Lebanese Armenians". Apart from these, the communication means and public communication systems of the countries with which it has relations, are providing ASALA with support in broadcasting.
The most important and official publication of ASALA is "HAYASTAN".
Besides, the magazines "Haykar", "Armenia" and "Kaytzer" published in London are included among the leading publications.
ASALA started its radio broadcasts in Beirut in 1981, and made broadcasts one hour a day with the title "Voice of Lebanese Armenians". Apart from these, the communication means and public communication systems of the countries with which it has relations, are providing ASALA with support in broadcasting.
About April 24, 1915
The Ottoman government, against Armenian revolts starting from 1890's and Armenian massacres which resulted with murders of tens of thousands of Turks, informed high members of Armenian congregation and the Armenian deputies that "Government will take necessary measures, if the Armenians continue to stab back the Ottoman State and to kill Turks". The Ottoman government's efforts to stop the events could be clarified with documents.
However, it became a necessity to secure the behind lines as the army was in war more than one fronts, the events did not stop on the contrary they increased. The Armenian attacks on innocent and defenseless Turkish women and children became a vital problem.
Under these circumstances, on April 24, 1915 Armenian Committees were closed by the Ottoman Government and 2345 leaders of these committees were arrested due to their antigovernmental activities. April 24, which is commemorated annually as "Anniversary of Armenian so-called Genocide" by Armenians abroad is this date when 2345 revolutionary committee members were arrested and this day is irrelevant with the Relocation Implementation.
However, Armenian revolutionary committee members always used this a propaganda rule by distorting and exaggerating the facts. As a matter of fact, Ecmiyazin Catholicos Kevork sent a telegraph to the President of USA, stating:
"Dear President, we have been informed that in Turkish Armenia, massacres began and the lives of the Armenians are in danger. At this delicate moment, I address to the noble feelings of Excellency and the great American Nation and in the name of humanity and Christianity, I invite you to interfere Turkey by your Great Republic's diplomatic representatives and protect my people who were left to fanatic violence of the Turks.
Kevork, Archbishop and Catholicos of all Armenians."
Russian Ambassador for Washington's contacts with the US government followed Kevork's telegraphs. Thus, 24 April, the day, which the Armenian committee members were arrested for their illegal activities was begun to be referred as "the day of so-called Armenian genocide by Turks".
REFERENCE:
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, s.210-211
However, it became a necessity to secure the behind lines as the army was in war more than one fronts, the events did not stop on the contrary they increased. The Armenian attacks on innocent and defenseless Turkish women and children became a vital problem.
Under these circumstances, on April 24, 1915 Armenian Committees were closed by the Ottoman Government and 2345 leaders of these committees were arrested due to their antigovernmental activities. April 24, which is commemorated annually as "Anniversary of Armenian so-called Genocide" by Armenians abroad is this date when 2345 revolutionary committee members were arrested and this day is irrelevant with the Relocation Implementation.
However, Armenian revolutionary committee members always used this a propaganda rule by distorting and exaggerating the facts. As a matter of fact, Ecmiyazin Catholicos Kevork sent a telegraph to the President of USA, stating:
"Dear President, we have been informed that in Turkish Armenia, massacres began and the lives of the Armenians are in danger. At this delicate moment, I address to the noble feelings of Excellency and the great American Nation and in the name of humanity and Christianity, I invite you to interfere Turkey by your Great Republic's diplomatic representatives and protect my people who were left to fanatic violence of the Turks.
Kevork, Archbishop and Catholicos of all Armenians."
Russian Ambassador for Washington's contacts with the US government followed Kevork's telegraphs. Thus, 24 April, the day, which the Armenian committee members were arrested for their illegal activities was begun to be referred as "the day of so-called Armenian genocide by Turks".
REFERENCE:
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, s.210-211
IS THE SEVRES AGREEMENT STILL IN FORCE ?
The Armenian propagandists claim that the Sevres Agreement, which provided for the establishment of an Armenian State in eastern Anatolia, is still legally in force, and use it to base their claims for the "return" of "Armenian lands". In fact, this agreement was never put into force. It was superseded and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, and thus no longer has the force of law. In addition, after the Dashnaks established an Armenian Republic in Erivan on 28 May 1918, it signed the BatumTreatyof4June 1918 with the Ottoman Government. This treaty was described by Foreign Minister Hadisian of the Armenian Republic as involving the full disavowal on the part of the latter of all claims on the territory or people of the Ottoman Empire including its Armenians and the lands claimed by the Armenian nationalists:
"The Armenians of Turkey no longer think of separating from the Ottoman Empire. Their problems no longer are even the concern of relations between the Armenian Republic and the Ottomans, Relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Republic are excellent, and they must remain that way in the future. All Armenian political parties feel the same way. Continuation of this good neighborly spirit is one of the principal points of the program recently announced by the Armenian Government, of which I am Foreign Minister. "(43).
Even the Dashnak organ Hairenik stated on 28 June 1918:
"Russia's policy of hostility toward Turkey emboldened the Armenians of the Caucasus; that is why the Caucasus Armenians were involved in clashes between two friendly races. Thank goodness that this situation did not last too long. Following the Russian Revolution, the Armenians of the Caucasus understood that their security could be achieved only by haying good relations with Turkey, and they stretched out their hands to Turkey. Turkey also wanted to forget the events of the past, and grasped the outstretched hand in friendship. We agree that the Armenian Question has been resolved and left to history. The mutual feelings of suspicion and enmity created by foreign agents have been eliminated.''(44)
These declarations make it clear that the Armenian Question was closed by the agreements concluded, following World War I; that- the events that had taken place were the responsibility of the Russians and Armenians, not of the Turk, and that if anyone had been mistreated it was the Turks, no-one else.
It is true that the World War I settlement was reopened for a time by the Armenian Republic. Despite the Dashnak declarations, Armenian bands began to raid into eastern Anatolia in the summer of 1918. On 28 May 1919, first anniversary of the foundation of the Armenian Republic by the Dashnaks, it declared that "Armenia has annexed Eastern Anatolia" thus laying claim to the territories of eastern Anatolia which had been returned to the Ottoman Empire following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. To examine the Armenian claims and recommend a settlement, American President Wilson sent an American investigation committee to Anatolia in the fall of 1919 under the leadership of General James G. Harbord. It toured through Anatolia during September and October, and then reported to Congress that:
"The Turks and Armenians lived in peace side by side for centuries; that the Turks suffered as much as the Armenians at the time of the deportations; that only 20% of the Turkish villagers who went to war would be able to return to their homes: that at the start of World War I and before the Armenians never had anything approaching a majority of the population in the territories called Armenia; they would not have a majority even if all the deported Armenians were returned; and the claims that returning Armenians would be in danger were not justified." (45)
As a result of this report, in April 1920 the American Congress rejected the proposal which had been made to establish an American Mandate over Anatolia for the purpose of enabling the Armenians to establish their own state in the East.
On 10 August 1920 the Armenians joined in signing the long-hoped-for Treaty of Sevres, which provided that the Ottoman government would recognize the establishment of an independent Armenian state, with boundaries to be determined by President Wilson. This treaty was, however, signed only by the Ottoman Government in Istanbul, while most Turks, and most of the country accepted the leadership of the Ankara government, led by Mustapha Kemal, who actively opposed the treaty and its provisions.
In the meantime, following the Armistice of Mondros which concluded the fighting of World War I in 1918, the province ofAdana was occupied by the French. The British occupied Urfa, Marash and Antcp but later left these also to the French.
As French forces occupied these provinces, in south and southeast Anatolia, they were accompanied by Armenians wearing French uniforms, who immediately began to ravage Turkish villages and massacred large numbers of Turks. These atrocities stirred the Turks of the area to resist, once again leading to the spreading of propaganda in Europe that Turks were massacring Armenians. This time, however, since the French themselves were forced to send the Armenians to the rear to end the atrocities, the Armenian claims were evidently false, and no-one really believed them.
After the American Congress rejected a Mandate over Anatolia, the Armenian Republic in the Caucasus, starting in June 1920, attacked Turkey, sending guerilla bands as well as organized army units into eastern Anatolia, and undertaking widespread massacres of the settled population. The Ankara government moved to the defense in September, and within a short time the Armenian forces were routed, eastern Anatolia was regained, and order and security re-established. By the Treaty of Gumru (Alexandropol) signed by the Ankara Government and the Armenian Republic on 3 December 1920, both sides accepted the new boundaries and acknowledged that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void. The Armenians also renounced all territorial claims against Turkey.
Shortly after this the Red Army entered Erivan and established the Soviet Armenian Government. However through a revolt in Erivan on 18 February 1921 the Dashnaks once again took over control of Armenia. The new Vratzian Government sent a committee to Ankara on 18 March asking for Turkish assistance against the Bolsheviks, a strange event indeed considering that only two years previously the Dashnaks had organized an Armenian invasion of Turkey. The Dashnak government did not last very long, however, and the Soviets soon regained control of Erivan.
On 16 March 1921 Turkey signed the Moscow Treaty with the Soviet Union, by which the boundaries between Turkey and the Soviet Union were definitively drawn. As arranged in this agreement, on 13 October 1921 Turkey signed the K-ars Agreement with Soviet Armenia, confirming the new boundaries between the two as well as their agreement that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void once and for all.
The situation on the southern front was settled by the Treaty of Ankara signed with France on 20 October 1921. France evacuated not only its own troops, but also the Armenian guerillas and volunteers who had cooperated with them, and most of the Armenians who had gathered at Adana in the hope of establishing an Armenian state there. Most of these Armenians were settled in Lebanon. This agreement made possible the subsequent return of Hatay to Turkey, thus fulfilling the provisions of the Turkish national pact which had been drawn up by Mustapha Kemal and the leaders of the Turkish War for Independence.
All these settlements effectively nullified Armenian ambitions for a state in eastern Anatolia. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 in place of the Treaty of Sevres, did not even mention the Armenians, which is why Armenian nationalists even today try to resurrect the Sevres treaty which never really was put into force.
(43) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p. 31.
(44) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., pp. 31- 32.
(45) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp. 682 - 683.
"The Armenians of Turkey no longer think of separating from the Ottoman Empire. Their problems no longer are even the concern of relations between the Armenian Republic and the Ottomans, Relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Republic are excellent, and they must remain that way in the future. All Armenian political parties feel the same way. Continuation of this good neighborly spirit is one of the principal points of the program recently announced by the Armenian Government, of which I am Foreign Minister. "(43).
Even the Dashnak organ Hairenik stated on 28 June 1918:
"Russia's policy of hostility toward Turkey emboldened the Armenians of the Caucasus; that is why the Caucasus Armenians were involved in clashes between two friendly races. Thank goodness that this situation did not last too long. Following the Russian Revolution, the Armenians of the Caucasus understood that their security could be achieved only by haying good relations with Turkey, and they stretched out their hands to Turkey. Turkey also wanted to forget the events of the past, and grasped the outstretched hand in friendship. We agree that the Armenian Question has been resolved and left to history. The mutual feelings of suspicion and enmity created by foreign agents have been eliminated.''(44)
These declarations make it clear that the Armenian Question was closed by the agreements concluded, following World War I; that- the events that had taken place were the responsibility of the Russians and Armenians, not of the Turk, and that if anyone had been mistreated it was the Turks, no-one else.
It is true that the World War I settlement was reopened for a time by the Armenian Republic. Despite the Dashnak declarations, Armenian bands began to raid into eastern Anatolia in the summer of 1918. On 28 May 1919, first anniversary of the foundation of the Armenian Republic by the Dashnaks, it declared that "Armenia has annexed Eastern Anatolia" thus laying claim to the territories of eastern Anatolia which had been returned to the Ottoman Empire following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. To examine the Armenian claims and recommend a settlement, American President Wilson sent an American investigation committee to Anatolia in the fall of 1919 under the leadership of General James G. Harbord. It toured through Anatolia during September and October, and then reported to Congress that:
"The Turks and Armenians lived in peace side by side for centuries; that the Turks suffered as much as the Armenians at the time of the deportations; that only 20% of the Turkish villagers who went to war would be able to return to their homes: that at the start of World War I and before the Armenians never had anything approaching a majority of the population in the territories called Armenia; they would not have a majority even if all the deported Armenians were returned; and the claims that returning Armenians would be in danger were not justified." (45)
As a result of this report, in April 1920 the American Congress rejected the proposal which had been made to establish an American Mandate over Anatolia for the purpose of enabling the Armenians to establish their own state in the East.
On 10 August 1920 the Armenians joined in signing the long-hoped-for Treaty of Sevres, which provided that the Ottoman government would recognize the establishment of an independent Armenian state, with boundaries to be determined by President Wilson. This treaty was, however, signed only by the Ottoman Government in Istanbul, while most Turks, and most of the country accepted the leadership of the Ankara government, led by Mustapha Kemal, who actively opposed the treaty and its provisions.
In the meantime, following the Armistice of Mondros which concluded the fighting of World War I in 1918, the province ofAdana was occupied by the French. The British occupied Urfa, Marash and Antcp but later left these also to the French.
As French forces occupied these provinces, in south and southeast Anatolia, they were accompanied by Armenians wearing French uniforms, who immediately began to ravage Turkish villages and massacred large numbers of Turks. These atrocities stirred the Turks of the area to resist, once again leading to the spreading of propaganda in Europe that Turks were massacring Armenians. This time, however, since the French themselves were forced to send the Armenians to the rear to end the atrocities, the Armenian claims were evidently false, and no-one really believed them.
After the American Congress rejected a Mandate over Anatolia, the Armenian Republic in the Caucasus, starting in June 1920, attacked Turkey, sending guerilla bands as well as organized army units into eastern Anatolia, and undertaking widespread massacres of the settled population. The Ankara government moved to the defense in September, and within a short time the Armenian forces were routed, eastern Anatolia was regained, and order and security re-established. By the Treaty of Gumru (Alexandropol) signed by the Ankara Government and the Armenian Republic on 3 December 1920, both sides accepted the new boundaries and acknowledged that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void. The Armenians also renounced all territorial claims against Turkey.
Shortly after this the Red Army entered Erivan and established the Soviet Armenian Government. However through a revolt in Erivan on 18 February 1921 the Dashnaks once again took over control of Armenia. The new Vratzian Government sent a committee to Ankara on 18 March asking for Turkish assistance against the Bolsheviks, a strange event indeed considering that only two years previously the Dashnaks had organized an Armenian invasion of Turkey. The Dashnak government did not last very long, however, and the Soviets soon regained control of Erivan.
On 16 March 1921 Turkey signed the Moscow Treaty with the Soviet Union, by which the boundaries between Turkey and the Soviet Union were definitively drawn. As arranged in this agreement, on 13 October 1921 Turkey signed the K-ars Agreement with Soviet Armenia, confirming the new boundaries between the two as well as their agreement that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void once and for all.
The situation on the southern front was settled by the Treaty of Ankara signed with France on 20 October 1921. France evacuated not only its own troops, but also the Armenian guerillas and volunteers who had cooperated with them, and most of the Armenians who had gathered at Adana in the hope of establishing an Armenian state there. Most of these Armenians were settled in Lebanon. This agreement made possible the subsequent return of Hatay to Turkey, thus fulfilling the provisions of the Turkish national pact which had been drawn up by Mustapha Kemal and the leaders of the Turkish War for Independence.
All these settlements effectively nullified Armenian ambitions for a state in eastern Anatolia. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 in place of the Treaty of Sevres, did not even mention the Armenians, which is why Armenian nationalists even today try to resurrect the Sevres treaty which never really was put into force.
(43) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p. 31.
(44) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., pp. 31- 32.
(45) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp. 682 - 683.
Did Talat Pasha Send Secret Telegrames Ordering Genocide?
Armenian propaganda claiming that so-called genocide was an Ottoman government policy requires proof that such a decision was in fact made. For this purpose the Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha supposedly found by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they seized Aleppo in 1918. It was claimed that they were found in the office of an Ottoman official named Naim Bey, and that they could be destroyed only because the British occupation came with unexpected speed. Samples of these telegrams were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author named Aram Andonian, (38) and they also were presented at the Berlin trial of the Armenian terrorist Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha. Nevertheless, the court neither considered these documents as "evidence" nor was involved in any decision claiming the authenticity of them. These documents were, however, entirely fabricated, and the claims deriving from them therefore cannot be sustained. They were in fact published by the Daily Telegraph of London in 1922, (39) which also attributed them to a discovery made by Allenby's army. But when the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office, and with Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been discovered by the British army but, rather, had been produced by an Armenian group in Paris. In addition, examination of the photographs provided in the Andonian volume shows clearly that neither in form, script or phraseology did they resemble normal Ottoman administrative documents, and that they were, therefore, rather crude forgeries.
Following the Entente occupation of Istanbul, the British and the French arrested a number of Ottoman political and military figures and some intellectuals on charges of war crimes. In this they were given substantial assistance by the Ottoman Liberal Union Party, which had been placed in power by the Sultan after the war, and which was anxious to do anything it could to definitively destroy the Union and Progress Party and its leaders, who had long been political enemies. Most of the prisoners were sent off to imprisonment in Malta, but the four Union and Progress leaders who had fled from the country just before the occupation were tried and sentenced to death in absentia in Istanbul. Three other Government officials were sentenced to death and executed, but it was discovered later that the evidence on which the convictions had been based was false.
In the meantime, the British looked everywhere to find evidence against those who had been sent to Malta. Despite the complete cooperation of wome enthusraztic supporters such as the Ottoman Liberal Union (38) ANDONIAN, Aram, Documents Qfficiels concernant les Massacres Armmiens, Paris, Armenian National Delegation, 1920. (39) Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1922. government, nothing incriminating could be found among the Ottoman government documents. Similar searches in the British archives were fruitless. Finally, in desperation, the British Foreign Office turned to the American archives in Washington, but in reply, one of their representatives, R. C. Craigie, wrote to Lord Curzon:
"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta ...no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.... The reports in question do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty's Government.''(40)
Uncertain as to what should be done with prisoners, who already had been held for two years, without trial and without even any charges being filed or evidence produced, the Foreign Office applied for advice to the Law Officers of the Crown in London, who concluded on 29 July, 1921:
"Up to the present no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners. It is indeed uncertain whether any witnesses can be found." (41)
At this time the "documents" produced by Andonian were available, but despite their desperate search for evidence, which could be presented in a court of law, the British, never used them because it was evident that they were forgeries. As a result, the prisoners were quietly released in 1921, without charges ever having been filed or evidence produced.
It is useful to reiterate that the main elements in the chain of evidence constructed in proving that Andonian's "documents" were all patent forgeries:
1. To show that his forgeries were in fact "authentic Ottoman documents" Andonian relied on the signature of the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdiilhalik Bey, which he claimed was appended to several of the "documents" in question. By examining several actual specimens of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey's signature as preserved on contemporary official documents, it is established that the alleged signatures appended to Andonian's "documents" were forgeries.
2. In one of his forged documents, Andonian dated the note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey. Again, by a comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor (40) 13 July 1921; British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/8519 (41) British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/E8745
Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, it is proven that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey.
3. Consistently, Andonian's forgeries attest to the fact that he was either totally unaware of, or carelessly neglected to account for, the differences between the Muslim Rumi and Christian calendars. The numerous errors he made as a result of this oversight are, in and of themselves, sufficient to prove the fabricated nature of his "documents". Among other things, the errors Andonian made in this respect served to destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he concocted for his "documents".
4. By way of a detailed comparison of the entries made in the Ministry of the Interior's Registers of outgoing Ciphers, wherein are recorded the date and reference number of every ciphered communication sent out by the Ministry, with the dates and reference numbers placed by Andonian on his forgeries, it is proven that his so-called "ciphered, telegrams" bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual ciphers sent by the Ministry to Aleppo in the period in question.
5. Again, by comparing the Turkish "originals" of Andonian's " ciphered telegrams" with actual examples of contemporary Ottoman ciphered messages, it is shown that the number groupings he employed bear no relationship to the actual ciphers the Ottomans were using in that period. Thus, in his attempt to make his forgeries appear credible, he created a whole series of unusable, non-existent ciphers. Further, from the dates he affixed to his forgeries in this category, the Ottomans would have had to use the same ciphers over a six-month period which was impossible. By publishing a series of documents instructing officials to change the ciphers they were using, it is shown that, in fact, the Ottomans were changing their cipher codes on average once every two months during the war years.
6. By comparing the manner in which the common Islamic injunction, Besmele, was written on Andonian's two forged letters with numerous examples of the way in which it appears on authentic contemporary Ottoman documents, it is suggested that Andonian's clumsy forgery of this term may well have stemmed from the fact that non-Muslims, even those who knew Ottoman Turkish, did not employ this injunction.
7. A number of examples from Andonian's forgeries show that it is simply inconceivable that any Ottoman official could have used such sentence structures and make such grammatical errors. In the same vein, a host of expressions; allegedly uttered by prominent Ottoman officials are used, which no Ottoman Turk would ever have used. Andonian's intention in these instances was clear: he wanted nothing less than the Turks themselves to be seeming to confess to crimes which he had manufactured for them.
8. The forged documents, with two exceptions, were written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman bureaucracy in this period. The fact that one of the forged Turkish originals was written on a double-lined paper, which the Ottomans did not even use for private correspondence, constitutes an even more serious error on Andonian's part. Even the two forgeries which appear at first glance to have been written on some kind of official Ottoman stationery are actually written on blank telegraph forms, which anyone wishing to send a telegram could pick up in any Ottoman post office.
9. At a time when the British were frantically searching the world's archives for anything to be used as "evidence" against the group of Ottoman officials whom they were holding for trial as being "responsible for the Armenian incidents", their failure to utilize Andonian's "documents" which were readily available in their English edition, strongly suggests that the British Government was fully aware of the nature of these forgeries.
10. Had documents of the nature of those concocted by Andonian ever actually existed, their confidential nature would have dictated that they be sent by courier for security reasons; rather than through the easily breachable public telegraph system. Likewise, had such documents really ever been written; it is inconceivable that they could have lain around in a file for three years, instead of being destroyed as soon as they had been read.
11. There are also numerous differences between the French and English editions of Andonian's book. Indeed, these variations are of such significance that it is absolutely impossible to ascribe them to printing errors, or errors in translation.
12. Finally, the fact that even some authors with close links to Armenian circles, who serve as spokesmen for Armenian causes, have indicated their own doubt as to the veracity of Andonian's "documents" should not be overlooked. In short, from start to finish the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams" are nothing more than crude forgeries, concocted by Andonian and his associates. Moreover the Ottoman archives contain a number of orders; whose authenticity can definitely be substantiated, issued on the same dates, in which Talat Pasha ordered investigations to be made to find and punish those responsible for the attacks which were being made on the deportation caravans. It is hardly likely that he would have been ordering massacres on one hand and investigations and punishments for such crimes on the other.
A letter forged by Aram Andonian with the date, February 18, 1331 (March 2,1916) opens with a "bismillah" (blessing), which would never have been written by a Moslem. The forger, Andonian, made his most fatal mistake with the date, however. He was obviously not well enough versed in the tricks of converting to the Rumi year of the Ottomans, where a difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars must be taken into account.
The date he put on the letter was off by a full year. Instead of 1330 (1915), he wrote 1331 (1916). The contents of the letter are supposed to be evidence of the long advance planning of the resettlement operation of 1915.(42) (42) Feigl, Erich. A Myth of Terror, 1991, Edition zeitgeschichten-Freilassing- Salzburg, p. 85
An American aid organization called "the Near East Relief Society" was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay and fulfill its functions in Anatolia during the deportations. Even following the entry of U.S.A. into war on the side of Entente powers against Ottoman Empire, the same organization was permitted to remain in Anatolia. This was dealt in the reports of the American Ambassador Elkus in Istanbul. In this case, if an order for "massacring Armenians" had been given, would the Ottoman Government have allowed to an American organization to be witness to the "massacres". In other words, it is ridiculous to suppose that the Ottomans said to America: "We are massacring Armenians. Why don't you have a look at it." Such an allegation could never be a logical explanation of historic facts. Finally, and in the end most important, when the war came to an end, the Armenian population still was substantially in place in Western Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. Had the Ottoman government ordered massacres, evidently they too would have been killed. And for that matter, had the Ottoman government wanted to eliminate all the Armenians in the Empire, it could have done so far more easily by killing and disposing of them where they lived, rather than undertaking a large-scale deportation of those in the Eastern war zones under the eyes of foreign observers.
The claim, thus, that the Ottoman government ordered and carried out a general massacre of Armenians in the Empire cannot be sustained and is disproved by the facts.
Following the Entente occupation of Istanbul, the British and the French arrested a number of Ottoman political and military figures and some intellectuals on charges of war crimes. In this they were given substantial assistance by the Ottoman Liberal Union Party, which had been placed in power by the Sultan after the war, and which was anxious to do anything it could to definitively destroy the Union and Progress Party and its leaders, who had long been political enemies. Most of the prisoners were sent off to imprisonment in Malta, but the four Union and Progress leaders who had fled from the country just before the occupation were tried and sentenced to death in absentia in Istanbul. Three other Government officials were sentenced to death and executed, but it was discovered later that the evidence on which the convictions had been based was false.
In the meantime, the British looked everywhere to find evidence against those who had been sent to Malta. Despite the complete cooperation of wome enthusraztic supporters such as the Ottoman Liberal Union (38) ANDONIAN, Aram, Documents Qfficiels concernant les Massacres Armmiens, Paris, Armenian National Delegation, 1920. (39) Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1922. government, nothing incriminating could be found among the Ottoman government documents. Similar searches in the British archives were fruitless. Finally, in desperation, the British Foreign Office turned to the American archives in Washington, but in reply, one of their representatives, R. C. Craigie, wrote to Lord Curzon:
"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta ...no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.... The reports in question do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty's Government.''(40)
Uncertain as to what should be done with prisoners, who already had been held for two years, without trial and without even any charges being filed or evidence produced, the Foreign Office applied for advice to the Law Officers of the Crown in London, who concluded on 29 July, 1921:
"Up to the present no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners. It is indeed uncertain whether any witnesses can be found." (41)
At this time the "documents" produced by Andonian were available, but despite their desperate search for evidence, which could be presented in a court of law, the British, never used them because it was evident that they were forgeries. As a result, the prisoners were quietly released in 1921, without charges ever having been filed or evidence produced.
It is useful to reiterate that the main elements in the chain of evidence constructed in proving that Andonian's "documents" were all patent forgeries:
1. To show that his forgeries were in fact "authentic Ottoman documents" Andonian relied on the signature of the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdiilhalik Bey, which he claimed was appended to several of the "documents" in question. By examining several actual specimens of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey's signature as preserved on contemporary official documents, it is established that the alleged signatures appended to Andonian's "documents" were forgeries.
2. In one of his forged documents, Andonian dated the note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey. Again, by a comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor (40) 13 July 1921; British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/8519 (41) British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/E8745
Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, it is proven that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey.
3. Consistently, Andonian's forgeries attest to the fact that he was either totally unaware of, or carelessly neglected to account for, the differences between the Muslim Rumi and Christian calendars. The numerous errors he made as a result of this oversight are, in and of themselves, sufficient to prove the fabricated nature of his "documents". Among other things, the errors Andonian made in this respect served to destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he concocted for his "documents".
4. By way of a detailed comparison of the entries made in the Ministry of the Interior's Registers of outgoing Ciphers, wherein are recorded the date and reference number of every ciphered communication sent out by the Ministry, with the dates and reference numbers placed by Andonian on his forgeries, it is proven that his so-called "ciphered, telegrams" bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual ciphers sent by the Ministry to Aleppo in the period in question.
5. Again, by comparing the Turkish "originals" of Andonian's " ciphered telegrams" with actual examples of contemporary Ottoman ciphered messages, it is shown that the number groupings he employed bear no relationship to the actual ciphers the Ottomans were using in that period. Thus, in his attempt to make his forgeries appear credible, he created a whole series of unusable, non-existent ciphers. Further, from the dates he affixed to his forgeries in this category, the Ottomans would have had to use the same ciphers over a six-month period which was impossible. By publishing a series of documents instructing officials to change the ciphers they were using, it is shown that, in fact, the Ottomans were changing their cipher codes on average once every two months during the war years.
6. By comparing the manner in which the common Islamic injunction, Besmele, was written on Andonian's two forged letters with numerous examples of the way in which it appears on authentic contemporary Ottoman documents, it is suggested that Andonian's clumsy forgery of this term may well have stemmed from the fact that non-Muslims, even those who knew Ottoman Turkish, did not employ this injunction.
7. A number of examples from Andonian's forgeries show that it is simply inconceivable that any Ottoman official could have used such sentence structures and make such grammatical errors. In the same vein, a host of expressions; allegedly uttered by prominent Ottoman officials are used, which no Ottoman Turk would ever have used. Andonian's intention in these instances was clear: he wanted nothing less than the Turks themselves to be seeming to confess to crimes which he had manufactured for them.
8. The forged documents, with two exceptions, were written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman bureaucracy in this period. The fact that one of the forged Turkish originals was written on a double-lined paper, which the Ottomans did not even use for private correspondence, constitutes an even more serious error on Andonian's part. Even the two forgeries which appear at first glance to have been written on some kind of official Ottoman stationery are actually written on blank telegraph forms, which anyone wishing to send a telegram could pick up in any Ottoman post office.
9. At a time when the British were frantically searching the world's archives for anything to be used as "evidence" against the group of Ottoman officials whom they were holding for trial as being "responsible for the Armenian incidents", their failure to utilize Andonian's "documents" which were readily available in their English edition, strongly suggests that the British Government was fully aware of the nature of these forgeries.
10. Had documents of the nature of those concocted by Andonian ever actually existed, their confidential nature would have dictated that they be sent by courier for security reasons; rather than through the easily breachable public telegraph system. Likewise, had such documents really ever been written; it is inconceivable that they could have lain around in a file for three years, instead of being destroyed as soon as they had been read.
11. There are also numerous differences between the French and English editions of Andonian's book. Indeed, these variations are of such significance that it is absolutely impossible to ascribe them to printing errors, or errors in translation.
12. Finally, the fact that even some authors with close links to Armenian circles, who serve as spokesmen for Armenian causes, have indicated their own doubt as to the veracity of Andonian's "documents" should not be overlooked. In short, from start to finish the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams" are nothing more than crude forgeries, concocted by Andonian and his associates. Moreover the Ottoman archives contain a number of orders; whose authenticity can definitely be substantiated, issued on the same dates, in which Talat Pasha ordered investigations to be made to find and punish those responsible for the attacks which were being made on the deportation caravans. It is hardly likely that he would have been ordering massacres on one hand and investigations and punishments for such crimes on the other.
A letter forged by Aram Andonian with the date, February 18, 1331 (March 2,1916) opens with a "bismillah" (blessing), which would never have been written by a Moslem. The forger, Andonian, made his most fatal mistake with the date, however. He was obviously not well enough versed in the tricks of converting to the Rumi year of the Ottomans, where a difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars must be taken into account.
The date he put on the letter was off by a full year. Instead of 1330 (1915), he wrote 1331 (1916). The contents of the letter are supposed to be evidence of the long advance planning of the resettlement operation of 1915.(42) (42) Feigl, Erich. A Myth of Terror, 1991, Edition zeitgeschichten-Freilassing- Salzburg, p. 85
An American aid organization called "the Near East Relief Society" was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay and fulfill its functions in Anatolia during the deportations. Even following the entry of U.S.A. into war on the side of Entente powers against Ottoman Empire, the same organization was permitted to remain in Anatolia. This was dealt in the reports of the American Ambassador Elkus in Istanbul. In this case, if an order for "massacring Armenians" had been given, would the Ottoman Government have allowed to an American organization to be witness to the "massacres". In other words, it is ridiculous to suppose that the Ottomans said to America: "We are massacring Armenians. Why don't you have a look at it." Such an allegation could never be a logical explanation of historic facts. Finally, and in the end most important, when the war came to an end, the Armenian population still was substantially in place in Western Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. Had the Ottoman government ordered massacres, evidently they too would have been killed. And for that matter, had the Ottoman government wanted to eliminate all the Armenians in the Empire, it could have done so far more easily by killing and disposing of them where they lived, rather than undertaking a large-scale deportation of those in the Eastern war zones under the eyes of foreign observers.
The claim, thus, that the Ottoman government ordered and carried out a general massacre of Armenians in the Empire cannot be sustained and is disproved by the facts.
Is Eastern Anatolia The Homeland Of Armenians?
Even Armenian historians disagree on this question. Let us examine some of their contradictory theories while looking into Anatolian history.
1. The Biblical Noah Theory. According to this idea, the Armenians descended from Hayk, great-great grandson of the Biblical patriarch Noah. Since Noah's Arc is supposed to have come to rest on Mount Ararat, the advocates of this idea conclude that eastern Anatolia must have been the original Armenian homeland, adding that Hayk lived some four hundred years and expanded his dominion as far as Babylon. This claim is based entirely on fables, not on any scientific evidence, and is not worthy of further consideration. The historian Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses it stating that "it depends entirely on information provided by some Armenian historians, most of which was made up."
2. The Urartu Theory. Some Armenians claim that they were the people of Urartu, which existed in eastern Anatolia starting about 3000 B.C. until it was defeated and destroyed by the Medes, with its territory being contested for some time by Lydia and the Medes until it finally fell under the influence of the latter. This claim has no basis in fact. No form of the name Armenian is found in any inscription in Anatolia dating from that period, nor was there any similarity at all between the Armenian language and that of Urartu, the former being a member of the Satem group oflndo European languages, while the latter was similar to the Ural-Altaic languages. Nor were there any similarities between their cultures. The most recent archaeological finds in the area of Erzurum support these conclusions very clearly. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that the people of Urartu were Armenian.
3. The Thracian-Phrygian Theory. The theory most favoured by Armenian historians claims that they descended from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that originated in the Balkan Peninsula and by the pressure oflllyrians migrated to eastern Anatolia in the sixth century B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the name Armenian was mentioned for the first time in the Behistan inscription of the Mede (Persian) Emperor Darius from the year 521 B.C., "I defeated the Armenians." If accepted, of course, this view effectively contradicts and disproves the Noah and Urartu theories.
1. The Biblical Noah Theory. According to this idea, the Armenians descended from Hayk, great-great grandson of the Biblical patriarch Noah. Since Noah's Arc is supposed to have come to rest on Mount Ararat, the advocates of this idea conclude that eastern Anatolia must have been the original Armenian homeland, adding that Hayk lived some four hundred years and expanded his dominion as far as Babylon. This claim is based entirely on fables, not on any scientific evidence, and is not worthy of further consideration. The historian Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses it stating that "it depends entirely on information provided by some Armenian historians, most of which was made up."
2. The Urartu Theory. Some Armenians claim that they were the people of Urartu, which existed in eastern Anatolia starting about 3000 B.C. until it was defeated and destroyed by the Medes, with its territory being contested for some time by Lydia and the Medes until it finally fell under the influence of the latter. This claim has no basis in fact. No form of the name Armenian is found in any inscription in Anatolia dating from that period, nor was there any similarity at all between the Armenian language and that of Urartu, the former being a member of the Satem group oflndo European languages, while the latter was similar to the Ural-Altaic languages. Nor were there any similarities between their cultures. The most recent archaeological finds in the area of Erzurum support these conclusions very clearly. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that the people of Urartu were Armenian.
3. The Thracian-Phrygian Theory. The theory most favoured by Armenian historians claims that they descended from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that originated in the Balkan Peninsula and by the pressure oflllyrians migrated to eastern Anatolia in the sixth century B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the name Armenian was mentioned for the first time in the Behistan inscription of the Mede (Persian) Emperor Darius from the year 521 B.C., "I defeated the Armenians." If accepted, of course, this view effectively contradicts and disproves the Noah and Urartu theories.
REFERENCE:
(1) CARRIERE, Auguste, Moise de Khoren et la Genealogie Patriarcale, Paris, 1896
What Is The Outcome Of Research Conducted By Foreigners?
Immediately after the World War I and following the occupation of Istanbul and several other regions of the country by the Allied armies, the British authorities had sent several hundred Ottoman political and military leaders as well as intellectuals, to Island of Malta under the accusation that they were criminals of war and imprisoned them there. The Sublime Porte had vehemently co-operated with the Allied Powers in all areas just in order to keep the sultanate and its very existence and to get rid of the Union and Progress Party that ruled the Empire for ten years and had a significant influence in the Government.
A thoroughgoing examination was made on the Ottoman archives in order to find clues for indicting the Union and Progress Party as well as the detainees both in Malta and in Istanbul. All these efforts did not produce an iota of evidence that might be used to incriminate the Government of that time and the detainees. Despaired by this failure, the British Government screened its own archives and the documents held by the United States Government in Washington. The result was a blatant impasse.
The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The tenor of this message is as follows: "I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty's Government against the Turks.(1)"
On 29 July 1921, the legal advisers in London decided that the intended indictments addressed against the persons on the the British Foreign Ministry's list were semi-political in nature and therefore these individuals should be treated separately from the Turks detained as criminals of war.
They also stated the following: "No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties. (2)" This statement was also made by the legal advisers in London of His Majesty's Government.
In the end, the detainees in Malta were released in 1922 without trial and even indictment.
Yet the efforts to smear image of Turks with the so-called genocide claims had not come to an end as the British press published certain documents attempting to prove the existence of a massacre claimed to have been perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire while efforts were on-stream to start a lawsuit in Malta. It was stated that these documents were unearthed by the British occupation forces in Syria led by General Allenby. The inquiries subsequently made by the British Foreign Office revealed, however, that these documents were fakes prepared by the Armenian Nationalist Delegation in Paris and distributed to the Allied representatives instead of having been discovered by the British army.
REFERENCE:
1. PRO.FO. 13th July 1971, 371/6504/E8519.
2. Foreign Office, 29th July 1921, 371/6504/E8745
A thoroughgoing examination was made on the Ottoman archives in order to find clues for indicting the Union and Progress Party as well as the detainees both in Malta and in Istanbul. All these efforts did not produce an iota of evidence that might be used to incriminate the Government of that time and the detainees. Despaired by this failure, the British Government screened its own archives and the documents held by the United States Government in Washington. The result was a blatant impasse.
The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The tenor of this message is as follows: "I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty's Government against the Turks.(1)"
On 29 July 1921, the legal advisers in London decided that the intended indictments addressed against the persons on the the British Foreign Ministry's list were semi-political in nature and therefore these individuals should be treated separately from the Turks detained as criminals of war.
They also stated the following: "No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties. (2)" This statement was also made by the legal advisers in London of His Majesty's Government.
In the end, the detainees in Malta were released in 1922 without trial and even indictment.
Yet the efforts to smear image of Turks with the so-called genocide claims had not come to an end as the British press published certain documents attempting to prove the existence of a massacre claimed to have been perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire while efforts were on-stream to start a lawsuit in Malta. It was stated that these documents were unearthed by the British occupation forces in Syria led by General Allenby. The inquiries subsequently made by the British Foreign Office revealed, however, that these documents were fakes prepared by the Armenian Nationalist Delegation in Paris and distributed to the Allied representatives instead of having been discovered by the British army.
REFERENCE:
1. PRO.FO. 13th July 1971, 371/6504/E8519.
2. Foreign Office, 29th July 1921, 371/6504/E8745
What Was The Demographic Data Before And After Relocation?
The Armenian committee members always distort and exaggerate the facts about Armenian population before and after the Relocation Implementation. They try to create a basis for their false claims by using war records, official records, church statistics and, reports of foreign missionaries. Some of numbers that is given about the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories are sometimes exceed to the total Armenian population of the Diaspora.
Armenian Population before the Relocation:
There are many different claims about Armenian population in the Ottoman territories; some figures are as follow:
1.British Annual Register 1917 1.056.000 (1)
2.Patriarch Ormanyan 1.579.000 (2)
3.The Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1.800.000 (3) (In "Armenia and Armenians", Aslan states the Armenian population in Anatolia 920.000, in Clicia (Adana, Sis, Maras) 180.000, in the other Ottoman territories 700.000, total 1.800.000)
4.German Priest Johannes Lepsius 1.600.000 (4)
5.Cuinet 1.045.018 (5)
6.The French Yellow Book 1.475.011 (6)
7.The Armenian historian Basmajian 2.280.000 (7)
8.Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan 1.150.000 (8)
Official Ottoman census statistics are as follows:
The Ottoman Directory of Statistics was founded in 1892 The first director of the branch was Nuri Bey. Between 1892-1897 a Jewish Ottoman, Fethi Franco was appointed for the duty. From 1897 until 1903, an Armenian director was in charge, called Migirdic Shabanyan. Later, Mr. Robert an American was appointed (1903-1908). Between, 1908-1914 Mehmet Behic was the general director. (9)
As it is seen, in a very chaotic period when the Ottoman government was facing with the Armenian Issue on the international arena, the Ottoman Statistics were under the control of foreigners. At this point, the Ottoman statistics should be considered as the most objective documents about the Armenian population living in Ottoman territories.
* Ottoman census statistics for 1893 1.001.465
* Ottoman census statistics for 1906 1.120.748
* Ottoman census statistics for 1914 1.221.850 (10)
An evaluation of the three sources clarifies that, during the First World War, the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories was approximately 1.250.000.
Armenian Population before the Relocation:
There are many different claims about Armenian population in the Ottoman territories; some figures are as follow:
1.British Annual Register 1917 1.056.000 (1)
2.Patriarch Ormanyan 1.579.000 (2)
3.The Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1.800.000 (3) (In "Armenia and Armenians", Aslan states the Armenian population in Anatolia 920.000, in Clicia (Adana, Sis, Maras) 180.000, in the other Ottoman territories 700.000, total 1.800.000)
4.German Priest Johannes Lepsius 1.600.000 (4)
5.Cuinet 1.045.018 (5)
6.The French Yellow Book 1.475.011 (6)
7.The Armenian historian Basmajian 2.280.000 (7)
8.Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan 1.150.000 (8)
Official Ottoman census statistics are as follows:
The Ottoman Directory of Statistics was founded in 1892 The first director of the branch was Nuri Bey. Between 1892-1897 a Jewish Ottoman, Fethi Franco was appointed for the duty. From 1897 until 1903, an Armenian director was in charge, called Migirdic Shabanyan. Later, Mr. Robert an American was appointed (1903-1908). Between, 1908-1914 Mehmet Behic was the general director. (9)
As it is seen, in a very chaotic period when the Ottoman government was facing with the Armenian Issue on the international arena, the Ottoman Statistics were under the control of foreigners. At this point, the Ottoman statistics should be considered as the most objective documents about the Armenian population living in Ottoman territories.
* Ottoman census statistics for 1893 1.001.465
* Ottoman census statistics for 1906 1.120.748
* Ottoman census statistics for 1914 1.221.850 (10)
An evaluation of the three sources clarifies that, during the First World War, the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories was approximately 1.250.000.
REFERENCE: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf-; Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gercekler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara 2001.
FOOTNOTES
1) Annual Record of Britannica, 1917
2) Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul 1987
3) Aslan, Kevork, Ermenistan ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1914.
4) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
5) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
6) 1893-1897 Ermeni Isleri, Paris, 1897 Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
7) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
8) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
9) Mazici, Nursen, Belgelerle Uluslar arasi Rekabette Ermeni Sorunu, Istanbul 1987.
10) see. Karpat, Kemal, H. Ottoman Population 1830-1914 Demographic and Social Characteristic, The University Of Wisconsin Press, 1985 London.
What Is"Relocation"? Does It Mean"Genocide"?
The Arabic originated word "tehcir" means "emigration / immigration", it definitely not means "deportation" or "exile". Hence the law commonly known as the "Tehcir Law" is the same as "Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementation's." The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is "tenkil" in the Ottoman language and means "transport- not the equivalent of "deportation", "exile" or "proscription" in Latin originated languages.
The relocation, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemy's invasion.
The relocation, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemy's invasion.
Later, the scope of the immigration was widened in order to include the Armenians in the other provinces, who rioted, collaborated with the enemy and screened the activities of Armenian Gangs. Although the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were excluded from immigration at the beginning, later those whose harmful activities were observed, were also relocated.
Since 1915, numerous papers, reports, books, etc. were written and published about the immigration implementation. The Armenians, by using false documents have succeeded to deceit the World for a long time. The rumor about Armenian holocaust (!) which expressed at first as three hundred thousand and later increased to three million has no basis at all. In fact, although English and French authorities have extensively studied the Ottoman archives during their occupation in Istanbul have failed to find even a single document hinting about such holocaust.
Had the Ottoman State intended to make genocide on Armenians; could not they realize such an act at the places where the Armenians live? Why would it be necessary "to immigrate" them for such an intention? Why did they undertake the significant fiscal and material costs of their security, safety, health and food of the immigrating Armenians? During this immigration and re-settlement process which lasted approximately 1,5 year from May 1915 until October 1916, why would the central and local administrations take measures to ensure the lives and properties of Armenians in spite of the difficult war circumstances? In addition, would it be necessary to accept great administrative, military and financial burden -as if opening a new front- to protect and secure these people?
The answers to these questions shall be sufficient to understand the real intention of the Ottoman State. Also there is no logical explanation that why the Ottoman State suddenly changed its policy towards a community which had always been called as "millet-i sadika" (loyal people) due to their being really faithful to the Government. Hence the party whose attitude had changed was not the Ottoman Government, but the Armenians who were deceived by the independence promises of Russia and the Entente States.
In conclusion, it can be said that the Armenian Immigration which was a necessary measure to ensure the State Security and Safety is among one of the most successful transportation and re-settlement processes; and has no intention whatsoever to annihilate Armenians.
Reference: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara, 2001.
What Does"Genocide" Mean?
This term refers to a well defined crime, the definition of which has been given in an international convention made after the Second World War: the "Convention of Prevention and Repression of Crime of Genocide", approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of December 9, 1948 and which went into effect on January 11, 1951, convention Turkey has signed and ratified this agreement.
In the convention the definition of the crime of genocide consists of three elements: for one thing, there has to be a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Then, this group has to be subjected to certain acts listed in the convention: the "murder of the members of the group, and forced transfer of the children of one group into another group and subjecting the members of a group to conditions which -will eventually bring about their physical destruction". But the third element is the most important: there has to be "an intention of destroying", in part or as a whole the said group. This key-description helps to differentiate between genocide and other forms of homicide, which are the consequences of other motives such as in the case of wars, uprisings etc. Homicide becomes genocide when the latent or apparent intention of physical destruction is directed at members of any national, ethnic, racial or religious groups simply because they happen to be members of that group. The concept of numbers only becomes significant when it can be taken as a sign of such an intention against the group. That is why, as Sartre said in speaking of genocide on the occasion of the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, that one must study the facts objectively in order to prove if this intention exists, even in an implicit manner.
Reference: Prof. SOYSAL, Mumtaz, The Orly Trial, 19 February - 2 March 1985, Statement and Evidence Presented at the Trial,
Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 1985
In the convention the definition of the crime of genocide consists of three elements: for one thing, there has to be a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Then, this group has to be subjected to certain acts listed in the convention: the "murder of the members of the group, and forced transfer of the children of one group into another group and subjecting the members of a group to conditions which -will eventually bring about their physical destruction". But the third element is the most important: there has to be "an intention of destroying", in part or as a whole the said group. This key-description helps to differentiate between genocide and other forms of homicide, which are the consequences of other motives such as in the case of wars, uprisings etc. Homicide becomes genocide when the latent or apparent intention of physical destruction is directed at members of any national, ethnic, racial or religious groups simply because they happen to be members of that group. The concept of numbers only becomes significant when it can be taken as a sign of such an intention against the group. That is why, as Sartre said in speaking of genocide on the occasion of the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, that one must study the facts objectively in order to prove if this intention exists, even in an implicit manner.
Reference: Prof. SOYSAL, Mumtaz, The Orly Trial, 19 February - 2 March 1985, Statement and Evidence Presented at the Trial,
Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 1985
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Çelik Kablo Bağı - DEMOS
Demos, aşağıdaki boyutlarda çelik kablo bağları ithal etmektedir.
- 4,6*250mm Çelik Kablo Bağı
- 4,6*450mm Çelik Kablo Bağı
- 7,9*450mm Çelik Kablo Bağı
Demos marka çelik kablo bağlarından satın almak için aşağıdaki telefon numaralarını arayabilirsiniz:
Tel: 0216 575 68 22
Mobil: 0544 819 19 20
Ayrıca demos@demosmuhendislik.com adresine e-mail göndererek de siparişte bulunabilirsiniz.
* Paslanmaz çelik kablo bağları aynı zamanda metal kablo bağları olarak da adlandırılmaktadır.
http://demosmuhendislik.blogspot.com/2008/05/celik-kablo-bagi-demos.html
